V. G. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, wherein 3. 5 acres of land belonging to the petitioner comprised in Sy. No. 41/1 situated in Ayodhya village of Hubli Taluk, dharwad District, belonging to the petitioner has been forfeited to the Government for violating the provisions of conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short 'the act' ). ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is the owner of the land in Sy. No. 41/1 situated in ayodhya village, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District, measuring 3 acres 5 guntas. It was agricultural land and petitioner made an application for conversion and the same was granted and the Deputy commissioner has passed an order on 23. 11. 2001 forfeiting the land for violating the conditions of conversion in exercise of the power under Section 96 (1 ). It is the contention of the petitioner that no notice was served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 23. 11. 2001 and wherefore the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order has been passed alleging that the petitioner is using the land for non-agricnultural purpose without conversion and that the petitioner has not used land for non-agricultural use. ( 4 ) THE learned High Court Government Pleader argued in support of the order and has made available the records. ( 5 ) IT is clear from the perusal of the records made available by the learned HCGP. , that apart from the averment that notice has been served by the Village Accountant, there is no material whatsoever to show that show cause notice was served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 23. 11. 2001, Mere endorsement that notice has been served would not by itself proof service of notice in the absence of any acknowledgement for having served the notice upon the petitioner or any mahazar in that behalf. 11. 2001, Mere endorsement that notice has been served would not by itself proof service of notice in the absence of any acknowledgement for having served the notice upon the petitioner or any mahazar in that behalf. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is passed without issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and wherefore, liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following order. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23. 11. 2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, dharwad is set aside and matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner to take fresh action, in accordance with law, after serving snow cause notice upon the petitioner and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law. All the contentions of the petitioner are kept open to be urged before the Deputy Commissioner.